Speaking with purposefully deceitful inaccuracy, Barack Obama takes aim in this NBC interview at the participants in the Tea Party gatherings around the country. Their actions highlight the deep opposition to his socialist agenda that his lickspittle propagandists in the so-called "mainstream" media would otherwise just belittle or ignore altogether. Nothing better indicates the decisive impact the Tea Party efforts are having than the fact that the Obama faction is desperate to find a way to slow their momentum. With the help of Congressional leaders as fanatical as themselves, they have hijacked the Democrat Party. They are forcing the rest of its increasingly reluctant passengers and crew to move toward socialism along a vector that is generating a massive headwind of opposition. At present, the craft looks very likely to be blown out of the political skies in the November midterm elections, even despite whatever arsenal of dirty tricks the Party's leadership deploys to decoy angry voters. They are fearful enough to trot out the Decoy-in-Chief to divert and dissipate the Tea Party's damaging political barrage.

There is something pathetic about Obama's apparent belief that his faction has succeeded in its vicious effort to discredit those whom its media lickspittles contemptuously dismiss as "birthers." Does he actually accept the laughably superficial notion that the issue is all about his birth certificate? If so, that raises doubts about the truthfulness of his claim to be an expert on constitutional law. If Obama released his Hawaiian birth certificate tomorrow, that would just be the beginning of the process needed to heal the damage that has been done to the authority of the U.S. Constitution.

Every word of the U.S. Constitution must be taken seriously. The words concerning eligibility for the Presidency involve the branch of government especially charged with defending both the law and the physical existence of the United States. Prudence dictates they be taken very seriously. In the actual circumstances of his case, this means collecting and weighing all the evidence that has a bearing on the question, "Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen of the United States." We can have no right arbitrarily to ignore the word "natural". Therefore, this is not the same as the question "Is Barack Obama a citizen of the United States." Naturalized citizens are citizens of the United States, but they have obtained their citizenship by satisfying requirements and following procedures established by positive acts of human legislation. The term natural refers citizenship to a source in nature itself, without reference to any positive act of human legislation (positive human law.) Its meaning depends upon what the founders referred to in the American Declaration of Independence as "the law of nature and of nature's God." In this respect the claim to be a natural born citizen is no more dependent upon a positive act of human legislation than the claim to be endowed with unalienable rights.

In order, therefore, to arrive at a reasonable understanding of what it means to be a "natural born citizen" we have to consider what it means to be born with any natural quality or trait whatsoever. It is commonplace to refer to people as "natural blonds" or "natural redheads." We easily understand the difference between someone whose eyes look naturally blue, and someone using tinted contact lenses to mimic that appearance. The provisions of inheritance law in vastly different parts of the world have been based on the difference between a parent's "natural children" and adopted children, in whom the kinship with their parents is recognized to be the result of a choice ratified by the provisions of positive human law. With no disparagement intended, the naturalized citizen is like a "bleached blond", for whom the appearance of blond hair required intervention by a human agent (a barber or hairdresser, for example.) Only where citizenship is the result of a fact true at birth, without reference to the intervention of any human agency (the legislature, for example, or the courts), can it in like manner be ascribed to nature.

Once the facts are established and documented, it is for the duly established branches of the U.S. government to reach a conclusion about the citizen status of Barack Obama at the time of his birth. It requires a bare minimum of common sense to realize that this conclusion must in some way be a function of his naturally existing (i.e. biological) relationship to one or both of his parents. There can be no doubt that the Constitution requires an informed, authoritative decision. All public officials in the United States are required by the U.S. constitution to swear their support for it. Failure to take positive steps to arrive at such a decision, on the part of any official at any level of government in the United States, is a clear and palpable dereliction of duty. In this case, the main burden of that duty falls on Barack Obama himself, who has several times sworn that oath in one form or another. Instead of doing everything in his power to make sure an accurate and informed decision can be and is arrived at, he has spent large sums on lawyers who are working to make such a decision impossible. He has even used employees of the U.S. government in this effort to thwart the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. More than anyone else, Barack Obama himself is responsible for the doubts more and more Americans have about the legitimacy of his claim to the Presidency. He is also responsible for the impossibly difficult burden of conscience his failure to resolve this issue places on all those sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, particularly those in our armed services. According to just breaking news reports, a high level active duty army officer has been moved by his strict sense of duty to risk court martial in order to seek the answer Obama so strenuously seeks to obfuscate. I and others seeking resolution of the constitutional crisis predicted that actions of this kind would occur. I believe that more will follow.

All Constitutionally sworn public officials in the United States who have failed to speak out on this question must shoulder their responsibility for the consequences of continued failure to address it. I accuse them of gross dereliction. I accuse every Republican, Democrat and other Senator and Congressman who has failed to insist that it be authoritatively address. I accuse every judge who has failed to act so that the facts may be ascertained. I accuse every state official who approved and without protest used ballots that presented a candidacy whose lawfulness they had never diligently verified. By their actions they degrade the authority of the U.S. Constitution. They contribute to the distrust and demoralization of the people. They undo the work of every previous generation of Americans who gave talent, resources, livelihood and life itself so that government of, by and for the people would be strong and never falter in these United States.

It is fitting that conscientious people who wear or have ever worn the uniform of our armed services, are giving the example of courage and devotion to duty that these other officials lack. But in different ways we all are sworn to the same courage and the same devotion, if only upon the graves of so many generations come before us, who did for us what we are failing to do for our posterity. The fundamental challenge of our time, emerging on every front and with respect to every issue, is the deadly assault now underway against the constitutional government of the American people. The first salvo of that assault was the almost casual contempt too many of our leaders displayed toward the words of the Constitution's eligibility provision. What better first step toward defeating the assault than to act on the inspiring example of our nation's sworn defenders? We cannot all go to court, but we can all speak out, write, twitter and text and call expressing to our elected officials and to one another our united support for the demand that the simple facts be established and the duty to act on them be fulfilled. We are not yet called, as previous generations were, to risk life, and fortune and honor and all. But if we are faithful in this lesser way, we will grow in the confidence that should the need arise, we will act. We will prove equal to their example; and no one of us will stand alone.

1 comments:

It's interesting how "those people" stick together. By "those people" I mean, of course, usurpers. On Sunday evening, the first speaker from the Tea Party Express III mentioned how unreal it was for there to be no mechanism by which issues of eligibility can be established. Coming from Illinois, of all places, she claimed to have investigated the laws and statutes pertaining to elections and found absolutely no way, at all levels of government, to verify whether a person is qualified.

This pronouncement came out of nowhere and was not in response to any question. What struck me was how the usurpers of the Tea Party phenomenon are trying to get out in front of this issue and put it to rest. Apparently, we are supposed to accept Obama at face value. The ability of some folks to talk out of both sides of their mouth is amazing. On the one hand we are to believe they are for the Constitution and its strictures on federal overreach while simultaneously ignoring a fundamental requirement of that same document.

My guess is they are hoping BO is a one-term president and his policies will remain in effect. What astounds me is not only the shear number of traitors to the Republic but their claims to a faux patriotism. Is it cowardice? Moral bankrupcy? Systemic ideology? Perhaps all of the above.

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.

Terry Lakin explains seeking Obama eligibility proof

FEATURED LINK

Support This Site

Friends of Liberty:

The content I share on Loyal To Liberty takes a good deal of time and effort to prepare. It's offered in the hope that it will prove helpful to people trying to think through the challenges of faithful citizenship during this time of deep crisis for the republican form of government in the United States.

The site is, as it were, freeware, but of course its maintenance and efforts like the pursuit of the facts about Obama's eligibility eat up a lot of man-hours. Your donation will help me and those who work with me. So please click the button below and help out to whatever extent you can. No amount is too small. When everyone chips in, the 'widow's mite' is mighty. Thank you and Godspeed.(If you would rather send a check or money order make it out to Alan Keyes and send it to: Alan Keyes, PO Box 83759, Gaithersburg, MD 20883.)

THOUGHTLET-The Enemy of my Enemy is ?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I've never been sure the old maxim made much sense. It gives your enemies rather too much control over the identification of your friends. What's more, it allows people who really aren't your friends to identify themselves as such just by opposing your enemies. Doesn't that make it easier for your enemies to plant agents in your midst with no more effort than it takes to stage a phony brawl?Because they live in such a hostile media environment, conservatives are all too willing to embrace any media voice that seems to take on their left wing opponents. But this means that at critical moments (particularly when it comes to personnel choices) they will be susceptible to information provided by people who have only been fighting with their enemies in order to get into a better position to do in the people whose sincerity, ability and leadership offer conservatives the greatest promise of success.In this regard I have observed that the most important information conservatives can get from Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel is silence: the things and people Fox positively ignores. You can be sure someone you know to be conservative is standing firm for what's right when you can't remember the last time you saw or heard anything positive about them on Fox News. Think of all the reporting they've done on the issue of Obama's eligibility for the Presidency.Listen to the silence. Better yet, learn from it.

Visit Me on Facebook

THOUGHTLET "A little thought (that) goes a long way."

During my service as an Ambassador and Assistant Secretary of State under President Reagan, a quiet but constant tug of war went on between the Reagan conservatives and the Bush Republicans, though supposedly all of us were pulling in the same direction.My brief as Assistant Secretary for International Organizations (IO- the bureau that, among other things, keeps track of the goings-on at the United Nations)included implementing Reagan's policy of withholding U.S. contributions to the UN until real management reforms were agreed upon and carried forward.I also got involved with issues that reflected Reagan's principled pro-life stands, and his strong commitment to defend Israel from the Arab inspired lynch mob more or less permanently on call throughout the UN system during those years.

Apparently one of the more polite terms of opprobrium the Bush forces used to pan conservatives like me was that we were excessively "ideological".To tell the truth, I always wore the intended slight as a badge of honor, sinceit signified theirreaction to my consistent efforts to make sure my actions served the ideas and principles Reagan stood for.

Meanwhile whether in or out of power the leftists who control the Democrat party have had no qualms about being "excessively ideological."While the Bush Republicans obligingly kept real conservatives running in place throughout their years of pre-eminence (while sopping them periodically with rhetoric and phony gestures of support), the Democrats looked for ways to promote their agenda of abortion, state atheism, and the erosive destruction of the traditional family (It's the major obstacle to totalitarian government control of the society.)Now that the leftists are surging with confidence, Obama shows no qualms about promoting "excessively ideological" extremists like Chas Freeman and Kathleen Sebelius to positions of controlling authority in the areas where they can do the most harm (from a conservative point of view.)Instead of running in place, they're poised to rush forward, like a good running back exploiting the chink of daylight that signals the way to at least a first down and who knows what more beyond that.

When are conservatives going to wake up and ponder the fact that the acronym for Running In Place is- R.I.P.

Share the Blessings of Liberty

THOUGHTLET

As I consider the reaction to my statement that Obama is a communist, I realize how thoroughly the Obama faction's media claque takes advantage of the ignorance even of those who are supposed to be educated and sophisticated spokespeople for conservative views. In this respect I am somewhat disadvantaged by my relatively small stake in this ignorance when it comes to political theory and ideology. For instance, people tend to associate the term "communist" with the violent takeover of government and society. Yet a thoroughly committed communist like Italy's Antonio Gramsci developed an understanding of the nature of political control, and therefore the path to power over a society, far more sophisticated than Marx's economic determinism. (Or was it in fact a more sophisticated understanding of economics?) It was therefore better suited to understanding and exploiting the "ideological" (i.e., spiritual and moral) vulnerabilities of the opponents of communism. In particular, his theories allowed for far greater use of cultural influences (the news and entertainment media, churches and other religious institutions, movements like "gay rights" that contribute to the destruction of moral institutions like the family, etc.) than some people associate with the term "communism". They helped later leftists to understand, explain and avoid (by learning from and adapting the enemy's tactics) defeats like those that fascism inflicted on mid-twentieth century communism in Italy and elsewhere.Reading Gramsci, one senses that he is looking at the intellectual framework for the Obama faction's secret strategic plan. As Sherlock Holmes knew, there's sometimes no hiding place more secure than one that is in plain sight. Especially in an era when the leftist takeover of education produces fewer and fewer people in each generation who bother to read books, especially the ones without pictures in them. (There's a good summary of Gramsci's thinking at http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-gram.htm)

THOUGHTLET

Apparently most of the people in Congress who voted on the so-called stimulus package had no time to read it, even superficially. That might seem like fodder for a late night comedy routine, until it occurs to you to wonder who did read it? After all, if the elected representatives of the people are just rubber stamping legislation prepared for them by others, its drafters are the ones dictating the decision. Congress sinks into the role reserved for the People's Congresses in places like North Korea or the now defunct Soviet Union. How quickly the substance of constitutional self-government is being turned into the perfunctory sham characteristic of stolid party dictatorships ruled from the background by a handful of unaccountable little despots.

How many Americans wake up every day longing to live under party dictators, worshiping at the altar of a propagandized personality cult, in a world where party hacks offer the only hope of relief from bureaucratic tyranny? All in exchange for a surfeit of meaningless sex and the license to kill your unwanted offspring.

I used always to think of places under communist yoke as regions languishing under perpetually cloudy skies. Actually though, it wasn't the sun's light it cut off, but the light of true human personality. Would any sane people exchange even the worst risks of life in freedom for such soul stifling banality? Will we?

Liberty Loyalists

Subscribe To Loyal To Liberty

THOUGHTLET

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's not a thought likely to occur to anyone thinking about the banking system these days. It's broke alright. Insolvency is the word of the day, along with that other word, nationalization. Funny how so many people who think the nation state has effectively ceased to exist when it comes to borders and immigration suddenly rediscover its powers when it's time to take over the banks.

"But Alan," you protest "we badly need a solution." Which, I reply, is not a good reason to accept a bad one. In fact , if things have gotten as bad as they say, maybe we should step back so as to let our thinking leap forward.

True, If it ain't broke, you don't fix it. But if it's really broke, you don't fix it either, you throw it away and replace it with something that works better. Instead of taking the bad logic of a failed centralized banking system to its logical conclusion (total centralization), replace the logic with something more suited to the twenty-first century. The twentieth century was all about bigger, more regulated and extensive organization. The hallmark of the twenty-first is the network, the model work-in-progress of which is the internet. It depends on decentralized, individual units, that reach out and form communities based on direct interaction and mutual assessment, rather than a centrally determined distribution of information (like a central bank's fixing the interest rate.)

If the present banking system is failing- let it fail. That's the first step in preparing the way for the emergence of twenty-first century financial networks. Instead of pretending that bankrupt governments can magically save a bankrupt system, accept the fact that the financial Titanic is sinking. Get people out of it, and use what resources we have to construct and launch the fleet of lifeboats in which they can distance themselves from the vortex it causes as it goes down. What I think we'll discover is that the new system we need will emerge from the resulting fleet, as we use twenty-first century tools to turn it into a floating net that won't be susceptible to the cascading disasters of the obsolete vessel. This deserves longer thought, which I give it in the essay Real Change Step Two: Replacing the Federal Reserve.

Twitter Updates

Twitter Updates

THOUGHTLET

I think it's not an accident that the American founders spoke of the people as a body (that is an organic whole), but the leftist proto-totalitarians that tutor socialists like Obama speak of them as "the masses." A mass is composed of conceptually identical parts, whereas the body is an organic whole in which each part is defined and differentiated by its individual purpose with respect to the whole. Is this why there are so many examples of totalitarian regimes that treat people as if they are mounds of dirt to be shaped and repressed, used or discarded (killed) without respect for their individuality? This totalitarian mentality finds a counterpart in the approach that claims to deal with human affairs scientifically, on the assumption that people are no different than other merely physical things.

Here is an audio compilation of the Thoughtlets I post every now and then. I'm making them available as a podcast at http://loyaltoliberty.podbean.com/. They are also accessible as an audio feed. Visit the site, and spread the word. The little thoughts are now consumable as little soundbites. They could be a great way to introduce Loyal to Liberty to people you know.

THOUGHTLETS (Podcast)

About Your Host

For a long while I have been involved in government, politics and citizen activism. I am Christian, Catholic, Pro-life and pro-liberty. I am sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the republican form of government it establishes. I uphold and seek to preserve the sovereignty of the American people, and to restore respect for the principles set forth in the American Declaration of Independence. In light of those principles, I believe the top priority of our political life is to restore respect for the existence and authority of the Creator, God and to rebuild the moral conscience and character of the American people on the basis of that respect; For God, Liberty and the Constitution.

THOUGHTLET

What signals the difference between a "socialist" and a "communist"? It's the gradual repression of political and civil liberty culminating in the open prosecution and suppression of dissident views. But this suppression cannot come about until a monopoly has been established over access to the seats of government executive and decision making power. The key manifestation of this monopoly is of course some form of party dictatorship.

Aside from all the evidence in his known background, associates, policy preferences and political actions one of the main reasons I make bold to call Obama a communist is his grab for unchecked partisan control over the conduct of the next census. Skillful manipulation of the census could make the decisive contribution to establishing an electorally unchallengeable party monopoly, which would then provide the basis for consolidating party dictatorship. If such dictatorship were not part of their agenda, the Obama faction would leave ultimate oversight of the census process where the Constitution places it, in the hands of the legislative branch. As it clearly is part of their agenda, only ignorance or willful stupidity blinds people to Obama's ambition to establish a better tailored version of Soviet-style government in the U.S.

Of course, there may be another name for what keeps some of the so-called Republicans from speaking out about it. Could it be cowardice?

Copyright Regulations

All material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog.

Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty

You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions:

Attribution. You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog.

Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website.

Only excerpts of less than 100 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included.

Noncommercial Usage. You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes.

Derivative Works. Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made.

If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website,permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.

THOUGHTLET

Everyone's fussing over whether the Alleged Usurper's stimulus plan will help or hurt the economy. Are they missing the point? Massive taxpayer resources are being pumped into Obama's powerbase. His cohorts grow stronger, while the larger economic impact of the plan makes everyone else weaker. Not much of a recovery plan, but a great strategy for securing power.

Then there are all those Hamas loving Palestinians he's using taxpayer money to bring to the U.S. After 9/11 the Palestinians danced in their streets. This time they won't have far to go to dance on our graves.